UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________________
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________________
`
`CARDIOCOM, LLC
`Petitioner
`v.
`ROBERT BOSCH HEALTHCARE SYSTEMS, INC.
`Patent Owner
`_____________________
`CASE IPR2013-00468
`Patent No. 7,516,192
`_____________________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S MOTION FOR OBSERVATION REGARDING
`CROSS-EXAMINATION OF REPLY WITNESS DR. ROBERT STONE
`
`
`_____________________
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________________
`
`CARDIOCOM, LLC
`Petitioner
`v.
`ROBERT BOSCH HEALTHCARE SYSTEMS, INC.
`Patent Owner
`_____________________
`CASE IPR2013-00468
`Patent No. 7,516,192
`_____________________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S MOTION FOR OBSERVATION REGARDING
`CROSS-EXAMINATION OF REPLY WITNESS DR. ROBERT STONE
`
`
`
`Pursuant to the Board’s January 28, 2014 Scheduling Order (Paper 23)
`
`authorizing a motion for observation regarding cross-examination of reply witness,
`
`Patent Owner Robert Bosch Healthcare Systems, Inc. (“Bosch”) provides the
`
`following observations on the July 15-17, 2014 cross-examination of Petitioner
`
`Cardiocom, LLC’s (“Cardiocom”) reply declarant, Dr. Robert Stone:
`
`No Opinion as to Clams 11, 12, 29, and 30
`
`1.
`
`In Exhibit 2069, Dr. Stone testified:
`
`Q. So you’ve not set forth in your new ’192 reply declaration and [sic,
`any] opinion that Wright renders obvious Claims 6, 7, 11 or 12?
`A. I have nothing here in this report.
`
`Ex. 2069, 1223:7-10.
`
`Q. And you have not responded to Dr. David’s arguments that Claims
`29 and 30 are not obvious in light of Wright?
`A. I have not argued that or responded to that.
`
`Id., 1243:2-5.
`
`This testimony is relevant to Bosch’s expert Dr. David opinions that Wright does
`
`not disclose the additional limitations of claims 11 and 12 of U.S. Patent No.
`
`7,516,192 (Ex. 1001, “ the ’192 patent”). Ex. 2007 ¶¶ 142-146. Dr. David also
`
`opines that Wright does not disclose the additional limitations of claims 29 and 30,
`
`which are identical to claims 11 and 12, respectively. Id. ¶¶ 166-69. This
`
`testimony is relevant because Dr. Stone admits that, in response, he does not
`
`-1 -
`
`
`
`provide any opinions that Wright teaches the additional limitations of claims 11,
`
`12, 29, and 30.
`
`Missing Claim Limitations
`
`2.
`
`In Exhibit 2069, at 1184:5-1185:7, Dr. Stone testified that the “input”
`
`Wright refers to is not an “input command” that is executed as part of a “script
`
`program” as required by claims 1 and 20. Ex. 2069, 1184:5-1185:7. This
`
`testimony is relevant to Dr. Stone’s argument that Wright specifies that its
`
`scripting language must have an input command. Ex. 1022 ¶ 52. This testimony is
`
`relevant because Dr. Stone admits that the purported input command he identifies
`
`does not satisfy the claim limitations.
`
`3.
`
`In Exhibit 2069, at 1225:14-1225:24 (emphasis added), Dr. Stone
`
`testifies:
`
`Q. Okay. So when you say that Wright renders Claim 17 obvious,
`you're relying on the -- it’s because you believe that Wright teaches a
`human user using a computer program to generate a generic script
`program?
`A. Yes.
`Q. Okay. And that both the human user and the computer program are
`part of what is necessary to satisfy the limitations of Claim 17?
`[A.] Yes.
`
`This testimony is relevant to Dr. Stone’s analysis with respect to claim 17. This
`
`testimony is relevant because Dr. Stone testifies that the claimed “script generator”
`
`-2 -
`
`
`
`can be satisfied by the combination of a human and a computer program. It is only
`
`through this attenuated reading of “script generator” that Dr. Stone argues the
`
`limitation is disclosed in Wright. Ex. 1022 ¶ 113.
`
`4.
`
`In Exhibit 2069, at 1240:25-1241:20, Dr. Stone testifies that the new
`
`field command described in the Wright patent does not meet the limitations of
`
`Claim 19 of the ’192 patent. This testimony is relevant to Dr. Stone’s argument
`
`that, with respect to claim 19, the “New Field” command in Wright discloses the
`
`claimed “insert commands” that must be part of the generic script program. Ex.
`
`1022 ¶ 117. This testimony is relevant because Dr. Stone admits that the “New
`
`Field” command he identifies in fact does not meet the limitations of claim 19.
`
`Dr. Stone’s Incorrect Understanding of Analogous Art
`
`5.
`
`In Exhibit 2069, at 1142:9-24, Dr. Stone testified:
`
`Q. Okay. And you understand that only analogous art can be
`considered as part of an obviousness combination?
`A. No. I don’t understand that.
`Q. Okay. So --
`A. I understand that a reasonably pertinent art can be considered as
`part of an obviousness consideration. That’s my understanding.
`Q. Okay. So in forming your opinions, you had an understanding that
`art that was not necessarily analogous could still be considered as part
`of an obviousness combination?
`[A.] What I stated that I can use a reasonably pertinent reference that
`is not analogous is my understanding.
`
`-3 -
`
`
`
`This is relevant to Dr. Stone’s legal analysis of obviousness at ¶ 28 of Ex. 1022, his
`
`reply declaration. This is relevant because Dr. Stone applies a confused and
`
`incorrect legal standard with respect to the requirement that obviousness
`
`combinations must use analogous art. See In re Klein, 647 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2011); In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
`
`6.
`
`In Exhibit 2069, at 1145:24-1146:5, Dr. Stone testified:
`
`Q. So you’re not -- sitting here today, you’re not saying that
`Wahlquist is, quote/unquote, analogous art?
`[A.] I’m not prepared to give a -- the answer is I’m not saying that
`right now, yes. You’re correct. I am not saying that at the moment.
`
`See also 864:13-20, 866:2-4. This is relevant to Dr. Stone’s usage of Wahlquist in
`
`obviousness combinations, on page 58-78 of Ex. 1008, and his incorrect legal
`
`standard set forth in Exhibit 2069 at 1142:9-24. This is relevant because Dr.
`
`Stone’s incorrect standard explains his usage of Wahlquist in prior art
`
`combinations despite his testimony that Wahlquist is not analogous art.
`
`7.
`
`In Exhibit 2069, at 955:24-956:12, Dr. Stone testified that in
`
`considering the field of endeavor of a patent, he does not limit his analysis to the
`
`claimed invention, and instead considered the entire disclosure of the patent. See
`
`also id. 1140:6-23 (Dr. Stone “applied the same legal principles [] with respect to
`
`the ’192 patent” as for the other patents, including the ’186 patent); 959:25-960:4.
`
`This is relevant to Dr. Stone’s argument at pages 58-78 of Ex. 1008 that Wahlquist
`
`-4 -
`
`
`
`is a proper reference to use for obviousness. This is relevant because Dr. Stone
`
`failed to limit his analysis to the claimed invention. In re Klein, 647 F.3d at 1348
`
`(“A reference qualifies as prior art for an obviousness determination under § 103
`
`only when it is analogous to the claimed invention.”).
`
`Improper Claim Construction: “Database”
`
`8.
`
`In Exhibit 2069, at 1129:25-1130:15 and 1113:22-1114:4, Dr. Stone
`
`testified that anything stored on a computer is necessarily stored in a database.
`
`This testimony is relevant to Dr. Stone’s opinion about the construction of
`
`“database” at ¶ 100 of Ex. 1022. See also 1116:1-8; 1190:25-1191:10. This is
`
`relevant because Dr. Stone’s new construction of “database” is overbroad, and is
`
`also untimely. In his reply declaration, Dr. Stone provides for the first time an
`
`extremely broad construction of “database” in response to Bosch’s arguments that
`
`the prior art does not disclose storing script programs and responses in a database.
`
`Specifically, Dr. Stone opines in reply that “a database is merely an ‘electronically-
`
`stored collection of data.’” Ex. 1022 ¶ 100 (citations omitted). By withholding the
`
`construction upon which he bases his opinion until his reply declaration, Dr. Stone
`
`has deprived Dr. David and Bosch of a fair opportunity to respond to his new
`
`construction of “database” and to whether the prior art teaches such a “database.”
`
`9.
`
`In Exhibit 2069, at 1191:11-21, Dr. Stone testified:
`
`Q. So when the claims of the ’192 patent refer to one or more
`
`-5 -
`
`
`
`databases accessible by the data merge program for storing the generic
`script program, it’s your opinion that the term “database” is
`superfluous or redundant because anything stored on a computer is
`necessarily stored on a database?
`[A.] I would agree with that statement. Anything stored on a computer
`in a file is in a database -- in a file system in a database.
`
`This testimony is relevant to Dr. Stone’s opinion about the construction of
`
`“database” at ¶ 100 of Ex. 1022. This is relevant because Dr. Stone testifies that,
`
`based on the definition he relied upon to form his opinions, the use of the term
`
`“database” in the claims is “superfluous” and “redundant.” This demonstrates the
`
`impropriety of Dr. Stone’s construction. Nautilus Grp., Inc. v. Icon Health &
`
`Fitness, Inc., 308 F. Supp. 2d 1198, 1204 (W.D. Wash. 2003) (“Courts should not
`
`construe a patent claim term such that it renders other terms in the claim mere
`
`surplusage or reads such other terms out of the claim”) (citing Texas Instruments v.
`
`United States Int’l Trade Comm’n, 988 F.2d 1165, 1171 (Fed. Cir. 1993)).
`
`10.
`
`In Exhibit 2069, at 1197:1-11, Dr. Stone testifies:
`
`[Q.] A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that you
`could not have a monitoring system that would meet all the limitations
`of Claim 11 without also meeting the additional limitations of Claim
`12 … [a]pplying your construction of database.
`[A.] In the broadest construction of database, that’s true.
`
`This testimony is relevant to Dr. Stone’s opinion about the construction of
`
`“database” at ¶ 100 of Ex. 1022. This is significant because Dr. Stone admits that,
`
`-6 -
`
`
`
`based on his construction of “database,” there is no difference in scope between
`
`claim 11 and claim 12, which depends from claim 11. Dr. Stone’s opinion is
`
`contrary to Federal Circuit law. See, e.g., Dow Chem. Co. v. United States, 226
`
`F.3d 1334, 1341-42 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
`
`Improper Claim Construction: “Script Program”
`
`11.
`
`In Exhibit 2069, at 1034:10-1035:19, Dr. Stone testifies that he
`
`believes that the Board’s construction of “script program” is overbroad and
`
`different than what he now believes is the proper construction of the term, which
`
`he proposes in a (now-rejected) petition for the related ’469 patent and in two new
`
`petitions for the related ’249 patent. Specifically, Dr. Stone testifies that there are
`
`at least two “relevant distinctions” between the Board’s construction and what he
`
`now believes is the correct construction. Ex. 2069, 1034:10-1035:19; see also
`
`1012:1-4; 1050:12-22; Ex. 2060 ¶¶ 26-29; Ex. 2061 ¶¶ 60-64; Ex. 2062 ¶¶ 39-43.
`
`This is relevant to Dr. Stone’s opinion about the term “script program” at ¶ 25 of
`
`Ex. 1008. This is relevant because Dr. Stone has provided no opinions in this
`
`proceeding based upon his newly-proposed construction of “script program.”
`
`Secondary Considerations of Non-Obviousness
`
`12. At Ex. 2069, 784:15-21 and 784:2-9, Dr. Stone testifies:
`
`Q. So you made up your mind that the claims of the ’420, ’186 and
`’192 patents were invalid as obvious before you considered any
`evidence of secondary considerations?
`
`-7 -
`
`
`
`[A.] That’s -- that pretty well states the case.
`
`Ex. 2069, 784:15-21; see also id. 783:1-15.
`
`Q. But just so we’re clear, none of the actual exhibits, the documents
`and the videos for the news programs and the exhibits that Dr. David
`cited were confidential or proprietary or secret or marked in some way
`that made you think that would have been impossible for you to have
`found, gotten or considered?
`A. No.
`
`Id., 784:2-9. This is relevant to Dr. Stone’s discussion of objective indicia of non-
`
`obviousness at ¶¶ 61-90 of Ex. 1022. This is relevant because Dr. Stone admits
`
`that he failed to consider any secondary indicia of non-obviousness in forming his
`
`original opinions, despite the fact that the evidence of secondary indicia cited by
`
`Bosch and Dr. David was all public information.
`
`13. At Ex. 2069, 835:23-836:7 and 1302:24-1303:19, Dr. Stone testifies:
`
`Q. Okay. So among those who were interested in patient care, there
`was a need for remote patient monitoring in general since at least the
`1970s?
`A. I would agree with that.
`Q. And that need continued -- sorry. Well, that need continued from
`at least the 1970s through at least the invention of the ’420, ’186, ’192
`patents?
`A. It continues today.
`
`See also id. 1302:24-1303:19. This is relevant to Dr. Stone’s discussion of long-
`
`-8 -
`
`
`
`felt need at ¶¶ 79-82 of Ex. 1022. This is relevant because Dr. Stone agrees that
`
`there was a long-felt need for the claimed inventions of the ’192 patent,
`
`constituting evidence of secondary indicia of non-obviousness.
`
`14. At Ex. 2069, 837:3-20, Dr. Stone testifies:
`
`Q. So it’s fair to say, then, that to the best of your knowledge, despite
`the existence of the need for such remote programming devices, no
`one had put all the claim elements together of any of the claims of the
`’420, ’186 or ’192 patents prior to the invention of those patents?
`[A.] I did not find the evidence that was explicit. As I looked carefully
`at some of these references, I believe that there is indication that it is,
`but it’s not explicit.
`[Q.] So sitting here today, you can’t point to a single reference that
`put together all of the elements of any of the claims of the ’186 -- I’m
`sorry. ’186, ’192 or ’420 patents prior to the invention of those
`patents?
`[A.] No.
`
`This is relevant to Dr. Stone’s discussion of long-felt need at ¶¶ 79-82 of Ex. 1022.
`
`This is relevant because, despite a long-felt need, Dr. Stone admits he could find
`
`no single reference or system combining the same elements in the manner set forth
`
`in the ’192 patent prior to the invention of the patent
`
`15. At Ex. 2069, 837:21-838:1 and 804:4-9, Dr. Stone testifies:
`
`Q. Praised by others is another objective indicia of nonobviousness.
`A. That’s correct.
`
`-9 -
`
`
`
`Q. The Health Buddy product was praised by others?
`A. It was.
`
`Id., 837:21-838:1.
`
`Q. And you’re not saying that the four-button design is the only
`reason for the recognition awards and praise that the Health Buddy
`received?
`[A.] I am not saying that.
`
`Id., 804:4-9. This is relevant to Dr. Stone’s discussion of praise by others at ¶¶ 83-
`
`86 of Ex. 1022. This is relevant because Dr. Stone admits that Bosch’s Health
`
`Buddy product received praise and awards, and that such praise was not simply the
`
`result of a four-button design. This is also evidence of secondary indicia of non-
`
`obviousness of the claimed inventions
`
`16. At Ex. 2069, 828:10-23 and 833:12-17, Dr. Stone testifies:
`
`Q. Okay. And do you have any evidence that any of the news articles
`set up by Dr. David that were not attributed or indicated, listed as
`authored by Health Hero were, in fact, secretly authored by people at
`Health Hero?
`[A.] I don’t have such evidence.
`[Q.] So you have no evidence that any of the articles that -- identified
`by Dr. David were ghostwritten as you would use that term?
`[A.] I don’t have direct evidence, no.
`
`Ex. 2069, 828:10-23; see also 833:12-17; 830:2-12. This is relevant to Dr. Stone’s
`
`speculation at ¶ 71 of Ex. 1022 that Bosch’s evidence of secondary indicia were
`
`-10 -
`
`
`
`“ghostwritten” or paid for by Bosch. This is relevant because Dr. Stone admits
`
`that he has absolutely no evidence to support such speculation.
`
`17. At Ex. 2069, 779:5-780:3, Dr. Stone testifies:
`
`Q. And you understand that there’s district court litigation between
`Bosch and Cardiocom?
`A. I understand that, yes.
`Q. You understand that Bosch accused Cardiocom of infringing the
`’186, ’420 and ’192 patents?
`A. I understand that, yes.
`Q. Okay. Did you ask anyone at Cardiocom whether they had copied
`the claimed elements out of the ’420, ’186 or ’192 patents?
`A. I don’t recall having any discussions with anyone at Cardiocom, so
`the answer to that would be no. Sorry.
`Q. It’s kind of an important point of information, isn’t it? If
`Cardiocom’s -- if you do ask someone at Cardiocom and they say yes,
`we did copy the claims of the ’186, ’420 or ’192 patent, that would be
`a material fact with respect to your opinion?
`A. It would be. [] But material fact, that’s a legal term, but it would be
`an important piece of information for me to know.
`
`See also id. 845:19-846:2. This is relevant to Dr. Stone’s opinions on copying by
`
`others, at ¶¶ 88-90 of Ex. 1022. This is relevant because Dr. Stone admits that he
`
`did not consider evidence of Cardiocom’s copying of the claimed inventions of the
`
`’186 patent, despite recognizing the importance of such evidence in analyzing non-
`
`obviousness.
`
`-11 -
`
`
`
`18. At Ex. 2069, 847:4-20, Dr. Stone testifies:
`
`Q. Okay. So the V.A. is saying through that RFP that if you want the
`V.A. to purchase your remote patient monitoring device, we the V.A.
`would like to see certain features. This is what we’re evaluating for;
`correct?
`A. That’s not what the V.A. says and that’s not what the proposal
`says. It says that these are desirable but not necessary portions for --
`that should be in the proposal provided back to the V.A.
`Q. What did you understand was meant by desirable?
`A. Would be nice to have.
`Q. Desired by the V.A.?
`A. Yes.
`Q. And the V.A. is the one who’s choosing whether to buy the
`products?
`A. That’s correct.
`
`This is relevant to Dr. Stone’s opinions about commercial success of Bosch’s
`
`Health Buddy, at ¶¶ 67-69 of Ex. 1022. This is relevant because Dr. Stone admits
`
`that the features identified in the RFP from the VA (Ex. 2062), some of which
`
`were driven by the claimed inventions of the ’192 patent (Ex. 2007 (David Decl.) ¶
`
`107), are in fact “desirable” and “[d]esired by the V.A.”
`
`19. At Ex. 2069, 851:17-25, Dr. Stone testifies:
`
`[Q.] You do not identify in your declaration any element of any claim
`of the ’420, ’186 or ’192 patent that would not be met by a product
`that implemented what the V.A. identified as desirable features in
`
`-12 -
`
`
`
`their RFP?
`[A.] I think I answered that, but the answer is I do not identify the
`elements of the claim.
`This is relevant to Dr. Stone’s opinions about commercial success of Bosch’s
`
`Health Buddy product, at ¶¶ 67-69 of Ex. 1022. This is relevant because Dr. Stone
`
`admits that he did not identify any element of the ’192 patent that would not be
`
`practiced by a product implementing the desirable features in the VA’s RFP.
`
`20. At Ex. 2069, 792:18-793:9, Dr. Stone testifies:
`
`Q. You criticize Dr. David for not conducting an element-by-element
`analysis of each of the claims to show there's a correlation with the
`purported invention?
`A. I do.
`Q. And in your -- forming your opinion on whether or not there is
`objective indicia of nonobviousness, you believe it's necessary to
`conduct
`an element-by-element analysis of each of the claims to show that
`there is a correlation with the purported invention?
`A. I do believe that’s true.
`Q. So it's your opinion that there is no secondary indicia of
`nonobviousness because Bosch did not provide such an element-by-
`element analysis?
`[A.] I believe that’s true.
`
`See also Ex. 1022 ¶ 63. This is relevant to the legal standard Dr. Stone applied to
`
`the nexus requirement for secondary considerations of non-obviousness, at ¶ 63 of
`
`-13 -
`
`
`
`Ex. 1022. This is relevant because Dr. Stone argues that Bosch was required to
`
`conduct an “element-by-element analysis” of the claims to establish a nexus
`
`between the secondary considerations of non-obviousness and the ’186 patent. Dr.
`
`Stone’s position is contrary to Federal Circuit law. In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573,
`
`1580 (Fed. Cir. 1995).
`
`21. At Ex. 2069, 797:10-798:7, Dr. Stone testifies:
`
`[Q.] You have not set forth in your new declarations any identification
`of elements of claim -- sorry. You have not set forth in any of your
`new declarations an identification of any element of any claim of the
`’420, ’186 or ’192 patent that you believe is not practiced by the
`Bosch products?
`[A.] What I have set forth is that Bosch has not provided evidence that
`they actually practiced the elements of the claims.
`Q. I understand that. But you have not -- you have not identified any
`element you say is not --
`A. That is correct.
`Q. And you have not identified any element that -- of any claim of the
`’420, ’186 or ’192 patent that you believe the Cardiocom products
`don’t practice?
`[A.] I have not analyzed the Cardiocom products for whether or not
`they practice the elements of the claim.
`
`This is relevant to Dr. Stone’s opinions on ¶¶ 62-64 of Ex. 1022 regarding the
`
`nexus requirement. This is relevant because, even in applying his improper legal
`
`standard, Dr. Stone admits that he has not identified any element of any claim of
`
`-14 -
`
`
`
`the ’192 patent that is not practiced by the Bosch products.
`
`22. At Ex. 2069, 813:12-20, Dr. Stone testifies:
`
`[Q.] So with that understanding of the term, do you have any opinion
`on whether or not the Health Buddy was a commercially successful
`product?
`[A.] I understand your question. I will repeat, for me commercially
`successful means that you’re able to make money; that is, that
`ultimately it ends up being a profitable product or leads to a profitable
`business.
`
`See also id. 814:18-815:1. This is relevant to Dr. Stone’s opinions on commercial
`
`success, at ¶¶ 67-78 of Ex. 1022. This is relevant because Dr. Stone incorrectly
`
`opines that commercial success requires a product to be profitable. “[S]ignificant
`
`sales in a relevant market” alone—with no mention of overall profitability—can
`
`demonstrate commercial success. See, e.g., J.T. Eaton & Co., Inc. v. Atl. Paste &
`
`Glue Co., 106 F.3d 1563, 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
`
`Dated: July 31, 2014
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By:
`
`/Don Daybell/
`Don Daybell, Reg. No. 50,877
`Attorney for Patent Owner Robert Bosch
`Healthcare Systems, Inc.
`
`-15 -
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Exhibit No.
`
`Description
`
`Filed
`
`BOSCH 2001
`
`Affidavit of Bas De Blank
`
`BOSCH 2002
`
`Affidavit of Lillian Mao
`
`BOSCH 2003
`
`Microsoft, “Computer Dictionary,”
`Third Edition, 1997, p. 296
`
`BOSCH 2004
`
`Affidavit of Bas De Blank
`
`BOSCH 2005
`
`Affidavit of Lillian Mao
`
`BOSCH 2006
`
`Affidavit of Siddhartha Venkatesan
`
`BOSCH 2007
`
`Dr. David’s Declaration
`
`BOSCH 2008
`
`Yadin B. David CV
`
`BOSCH 2009
`
`Deposition Transcript of Dr. Stone Taken
`on March , 7, 12 & 13, 2014
`
`BOSCH 2010
`
`BOSCH 2011
`
`Bosch Healthcare’s Health Buddy System
`Contract Awarded by Department of
`Veterans Affairs, April 2011
`
`Six Healthcare Organizations Select
`Health Hero Network, Inc., for Disease
`Management Programs, Aug. 23, 1999
`
`-16 -
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`
`
`Exhibit No.
`
`Description
`
`Filed
`
`BOSCH 2012
`
`Health Hero Taps Blue Cross as
`Customer
`
`BOSCH 2013
`
`HHN: Web Helps Nurses Manage
`Patients
`
`BOSCH 2014
`
`BOSCH 2015
`
`Fujisawa to Fund Medicine Shoppe
`Transplant Management Program, Nov.
`15, 1999
`
`Eckerd Teams Up with Health Hero to
`Offer Internet-based Patient Care
`Program for Home User, Feb. 7, 2000
`
`BOSCH 2016
`
`Internet Health-Care Companies Target
`Seniors, Newborns, Nov. 9, 1998
`
`BOSCH 2017
`
`Blue Dun Eastside Location Works Well;
`Species Act Hurts
`
`BOSCH 2018
`
`Frost and Sullivan Recognizes Bosch
`Healthcare’s Contribution Towards
`Remote Patient Monitoring, Dec. 23,
`2011
`
`BOSCH 2019
`
`Alaska: Ground Zero for Telehealth
`Innovation and Deployment, Oct. 2011
`
`BOSCH 2020
`
`Health Hero Improves Patient Care with
`Direct Provider Link, June 1999
`
`-17 -
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`
`
`Exhibit No.
`
`Description
`
`Filed
`
`BOSCH 2021
`
`Hight-Tech Alternatives Help Providers
`Manage Chronically Ill Seniors, Oct.
`1999
`
`BOSCH 2022
`
`Who’s Your “Health Buddy”?, Feb. 14,
`2000
`
`BOSCH 2023
`
`Buddy Questions, Watches
`
`BOSCH 2024
`
`EDS and Health Hero Network Offer
`Internet Approach to Supporting Patients
`at Home, May 17, 1999
`
`BOSCH 2025
`
`IT Helps Manage Patients with Chronic
`Illness, Dec. 1999
`
`BOSCH 2026
`
`BOSCH 2027
`
`Mercy Health Center’s Telemedicine
`Congestive Heart Failure Disease
`Management Program Shows Significant
`Savings with Health Bud and Health Hero
`iCare Desktop
`
`MDS Pharma Services Demonstrates
`Effectiveness of Health Buddy as a
`Resource-Saving Alternative to Manual
`Patient Diaries
`
`BOSCH 2028
`
`Peter Jennings News Segment, Cutting
`Edge, Feb. 26, 1999
`
`BOSCH 2029
`
`ABC 2 Your Health News Segment,
`Health Buddy – MedStar Visiting Nurse
`
`-18 -
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`
`
`Exhibit No.
`
`Description
`
`Filed
`
`Association
`
`BOSCH 2030
`
`Your Personal Health Buddy, Feb. 26,
`1999
`
`BOSCH 2031
`
`Old Age in the Technology Age, Aug. 8,
`2005
`
`BOSCH 2032
`
`MD Computing, Visual Integration, A
`New Technology for the Talking
`Physician, March/April 2000
`
`BOSCH 2033
`
`The Buddy System, July 15, 1999
`
`BOSCH 2034
`
`Diabetics Get Wired, Jan., 2000
`
`BOSCH 2035
`
`Health Hero Comes to the Rescue via
`FDA First
`
`BOSCH 2036
`
`Designed to Age Well, May 30, 1999
`
`BOSCH 2037
`
`ITAA Information Technology
`Association of America Member Award
`
`BOSCH 2038
`
`e-Health Moving Beyond the Hype
`Award
`
`BOSCH 2039
`
`Mosby’s M CMC XI Award
`
`BOSCH 2040
`
`HBS Health Industry Alumni Association
`eHealth Retreat and Award of Merit, New
`
`-19 -
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`
`
`Exhibit No.
`
`Description
`
`Filed
`
`Media Invision Multimedia Awards
`
`BOSCH 2041
`
`Medical Design Excellence Awards
`
`BOSCH 2042
`
`Frost & Sullivan Award for Product
`Innovation Excellence
`
`BOSCH 2043
`
`DMAA Recognizing Excellence Award
`
`BOSCH 2044
`
`Telehealth Award for Advancing
`Excellence in the Telehealth Industry
`
`BOSCH 2045
`
`Business Week the Best Products of 2000
`Award
`
`BOSCH 2046
`
`The National Managed Health Care
`Congress Award
`
`BOSCH 2047
`
`Frost & Sullivan Awards Health Buddy
`System Developer for Product Innovation,
`Nov. 30, 2004
`
`BOSCH 2048
`
`Health Buddy Patient Testimonials
`
`BOSCH 2049
`
`Riverbend Community Mental Health,
`Inch. video
`
`BOSCH 2050
`
`Mercy Health Center’s Telemedicine
`Diabetes Disease Management Program
`Shows Significant Savings with Health
`Budd and Heath Hero iCare Desktop
`
`-20 -
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`
`
`Exhibit No.
`
`Description
`
`BOSCH 2051
`
`Case Study. PacifiCare CHF Program –
`“Taking Charge of Your Heart Health”
`Shows Significant Utilization Reduction
`and Costs Savings Using Health Hero
`Platform
`
`Filed
`
`X
`
`BOSCH 2052
`
`Integrated Telehealth and Care
`Management Program for Medicare
`Beneficiaries with Chronic Disease
`Linked to Savings
`
`BOSCH 2053
`
`Challenge of CHF Management: A
`Culmination of Precursors, Oct. 1999
`
`BOSCH 2054
`
`Case Study. Opening a Window of
`Opportunity Through Technology and
`Coordination: A Multisite Case Study,
`Nov. 3, 2003
`
`BOSCH 2055
`
`Easing the Elderly Online in Search of
`Health Information
`
`BOSCH 2056
`
`VA National Acquisition and Logistic
`Center Form
`
`BOSCH 2057
`
`BOSCH 2058
`
`Bosch Healthcare Receives Market
`Strategy Leadership Award from Frost &
`Sullivan, Sept. 24, 2009
`
`Defendant’s Preliminary Claim
`Constructions and Disclosure of Extrinsic
`Evidence Pursuant to Local Patent Rule
`
`-21 -
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`
`
`Exhibit No.
`
`Description
`
`Filed
`
`BOSCH 2059
`
`BOSCH 2060
`
`BOSCH 2061
`
`BOSCH 2062
`
`4-2 Served on March 14, 2014
`
`Declaration by Matthew Might, PH.D
`Regarding Claim Constructions of
`Asserted Patents, filed on March 14, 2014
`
`Declaration by Robert T. Stone, PH.D
`Regarding U.S. Patent No. 7,587,469
`Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.63 (a), dated
`February 13, 2014
`
`Declaration by Robert T. Stone, PH.D
`Regarding U.S. Patent No. 7,870,249
`Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.63 (a), dated April
`9, 2014
`
`Declaration of Robert T. Stone, Ph.D in
`Support of Petition for Inter Partes
`Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,870,249,
`dated April 24, 2014
`
`BOSCH 2063
`
`Deposition Errata Sheets of Dr. Stone
`
`BOSCH 2064
`
`Supplemental Declaration Responding to
`Patent Owner Contentions By Robert T.
`Stone, Ph.D. Regarding U.S. Patent No.
`7,516,192 Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.63(a)
`
`BOSCH 2065
`
`Medtronic’s Petition for Inter Partes
`Review Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.100, filed
`on April 10, 2014
`
`-22 -
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`
`
`Exhibit No.
`
`Description
`
`Filed
`
`BOSCH 2066
`
`BOSCH 2067
`
`Medtronic’s Petition for Inter Partes
`Review Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.100, filed
`on April 25, 2014
`
`Declaration by Robert T. Stone, Ph.D
`Regarding U.S. Patent No. 7,921,186
`Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.63(a), dated July
`11, 2013
`
`BOSCH 2068
`
`Signature Pages to Dr. David’s
`Depositions
`
`BOSCH 2069
`
`Deposition Transcript of Dr. Stone Taken
`on July 15, 16 & 17, 2014
`
`BOSCH 2070
`
`BOSCH 2071
`
`Patent Owner’s Objections to Evidence
`Submitted by Cardiocom, LLC With
`Respect to U.S. Patent No. 7,587,469,
`filed July 9, 2014
`
`Patent Owner’s Objections to Evidence
`Submitted by Cardiocom, LLC With
`Respect to U.S. Patent No. 7,587,469,
`filed June 17, 2014
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`-23 -
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE (37 C.F.R. §§ 42.6(e))
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that the above-captioned PATENT
`
`OWNER’S MOTION FOR OBSERVATION REGARDING CROSS-
`
`EXAMINATION OF REPLY WITNESS DR. ROBERT STONE and Exhibits
`
`2058-2067 and 2069-2071 were served in its entirety on July 31, 2014, upon the
`
`following parties via electronic mail:
`
`Counsel for Petitioner
`
`Daniel W. McDonald
`Andrew J. Lagatta
`Merchant & Gould
`80 South 8th St., Suite 3200
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`CardiocomIPR@merchantgould.com
`
`By:
`
`/Karen Johnson/
`Karen Johnson
`
`-24 -
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
